{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106415", "time_of_filling": "2024-04-09 10:20:07", "domain_names": [ "zegnaargentina.com", "zegnacanadaoutlet.com", "zegnachile.com", "zegnagreece.com", "zegnahrvatska.com", "zegnahungary.com", "zegnaindia.com", "zegnaireland.com", "zegnajapan.com", "zegna-london.com", "zegna-outletstore.com", "zegnaperu.com", "zegnaportugal.com", "zegnaromania.com", "zegnaslovenija.com", "zegnasrbija.com", "zegnaturkiye.com", "zegna-uae.com", "zegnaus.com", "zegnabelgium.com", "zegnanederland.com", "zegnadanmark.com", "zegnanorge.com", "ermenegildozegnanz.com", "ermenegildozegnaoutlet.com", "zegnaaustralia.com", "zegna-canada.com", "zegnadeutschland.com", "zegnafactoryoutlet.com", "zegnalondon.com", "zegnamexico.com", "zegna-outlet.com", "zegna-outlet-store.com", "zegnaparis.com", "zegnasingapore.com", "zegnastorenyc.com", "zegnasydney.com", "zegnaturkey.com", "zegnauae.com", "zegnauk.com", "zegnausa.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "CONSITEX S.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Convey srl", "respondent": [ "Web Commerce Communications Limited" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant, founded as a fabric maker in 1910 by Ermenegildo Zegna in Trivero, Italy,<\/span> is a Swiss corporation, listed on the New York Stock Exchange<\/span>, and owner of the ZEGNA and ERMENEGILDO ZEGNA trademarks with several international and national trademark registrations worldwide. T<\/span>he Complainant's trademarks are today internationally recognized as leading global luxury menswear brands.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant has also registered several domain names comprising or consisting of the ZEGNA and ERMENEGILDO ZEGNA trademarks, including <zegna.com> since 28 February 1996, <ermenegildozegna.com> since 19 August 1997, <zegna.cn> since 17 March 2003, and <zegnagroup.com> since 20 October 2008. These domain names are used by the Complainant as its official websites, promoting its activities and offering for sale its products.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain names were registered by Web Commerce Communications Limited, located in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, between 9 and 16 October 2023.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain names were used to resolve to websites mimicking the Complainant's website(s) and, thus, to impersonate the Complainant.<\/p>\n

The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent through the Registrar without obtaining any response.<\/p>\n

Currently, the disputed domain names do not resolve to any active website.<\/p>\n

These facts are asserted by the Complainant and are not contested by the Respondent.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n

In particular, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark, since they contain the Complainant's ZEGNA and ERMENEGILDO ZEGNA trademarks in their entirety. The additional terms and the TLD do not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant's trademarks.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain names by the Complainant. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has acquired any rights in a trademark or trade name corresponding to the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant contends that, given the distinctiveness and reputation of its trademarks, it is unlikely that the Respondent had no knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks when he registered the disputed domain names confusingly similar to such marks. The Respondent's awareness of the Complainant's trademarks and his intention to target the Complainant are also confirmed by the use, namely the association of the disputed domain names with e-commerce sites mimicking the Complainant's website(s). Hence, the Respondent has registered and are using the disputed domain names having in mind the Complainant and its trademarks and with the clear intention to take advantage of the reputation of the same by creating a likelihood of confusion between such marks and the disputed domain names.<\/span><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>\n

Under paragraph 10(e) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide, on its own discretion, to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and the Rules. At the same time, paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder.<\/p>\n

In deciding consolidation, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency shall also be taken into consideration by panels (paragraph 10(c) of the Rules: \"The Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition\").<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>The following circumstances of the present case have convinced the Panel to accept the Complainant's consolidation request of 41 domain names in one-single Complaint:<\/p>\n